“30. … … … This Court concludes so, essentially on the basis of its findings to point nos. I and II, which negates the necessity to resolve the instant issue framed. That apart, this Court is not in full agreement with the legal position sought to be canvassed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 to the effect that, since the said respondents are separate legal entities, capable of suing and being sued, one cannot be answerable for the actions of the other. In an appropriate factual setting, it might be well within the four corners of law to make a legal entity answerable for the actions of another. Say for example, if a company having a separate legal entity, commits serious violations of law, and in order to escape from the clutches of law, a second company is floated, with more or less the same set of Directors. The law enforcement agency cannot throw its hands in despair, stating that the second company is a separate legal entity in the eyes of law and hence completely immune from all possible legal actions, even when fraudulent constitution of the same is axiomatic from the facts. Legal recourse in such situation may be available, possibly with the aid of piercing the corporate veil. However, that fact situation has not arisen in the instant case. It is noticed that 9th respondent company was constituted in the year 1996 and the 10th respondent company, in the year 2018. Therefore, it cannot be argued for a moment that the said companies were floated in order to enable the 8th respondent company to wriggle out of the legal obligations. This Court also notice that the sites, where each
